National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
David Levin Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
9/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I'm not ideologically opposed to conditional neg advocacies, it just runs the risk of making the back half a little messy.
If the other judge in the room is reactionary against critical arguments, I will boost speaks considerably for teams that run and/or engage with the substance of a criticism. You still have to win the flow to get my ballot, but don't let someone tell you that a criticism is an "unacceptable" argument. Slow it down if you need, but remember that this is YOUR activity first and foremost.
Open cross is fine. Sitting for your speeches is fine. Having fun is highly encouraged.
Note: if you wish for your pronouns to appear the debaters you judge on text/email blasts, log into Tabroom, click Profile at top, and add them in the Pronouns field.